Updated September 2026: in 2019 my manager told me a delivery lead had said my deck was not what was expected, and that my manager should review everything I sent. He would not say who it was; I later learned it was a lead I had clashed with before. I have rewritten it into advice on handling anonymous criticism of your work.
It felt like a slap. My manager said a delivery lead had complained that my slides were not meeting expectations, and that he was advised to review my work every time. He refused to name the lead. Later I found out it was the same lead I had worked with, and argued with, on an earlier opportunity.
Why do managers keep the source anonymous?
To avoid escalating conflict, and sometimes because the person asked. It can be well-intentioned. But anonymous criticism is hard to act on, because you cannot ask the critic what specifically was wrong.
How should you respond?
- Ask for the specifics, not the name: which slides, and what was missing?
- Ask what "expected" meant: whose expectations, set when?
- Accept the review arrangement for now, and propose how it will end.
Is having your work reviewed every time a bad sign?
Temporarily, it can be a reasonable way to rebuild confidence. Suggest a time limit: "Let's review my next two decks together, then decide if it's still needed." Most managers agree, and a couple of good decks usually ends it.
What if you think the criticism is unfair?
Show evidence: the brief you worked from, the feedback other stakeholders gave and any approvals received. Keep it calm. The aim is a fair picture, not proving the critic wrong.
What if you discover who it was?
Resist confronting them about the complaint itself. Focus on the next piece of work: agree expectations with them upfront, in writing. That removes the ground for the same criticism next time.
How do you stop it affecting your confidence?
Remember that one stakeholder's view is not the whole picture. Keep records of positive feedback too.